General Discussion

shezzarine wrote:I remember something akin to a turn based system from a MUD someone here was running (I think it was called Songs of Albion?) which required an emoted action before the combat roll went through. The slower pace was offset by generally higher damage each round. Or that's how it was pitched/explained to me, as I never went through it myself, but it sounded alright. .

Haven had, and to an extent still has, a system like this. It totally falls apart with more than three people in a fight-- and if you have more than 5 to 7, you won't get a turn for a solid ten minutes.

One time, there was a fight with something like twelve to fifteen people in it. The fight took three hours, no exaggerations.

shezzarine wrote:I remember something akin to a turn based system from a MUD someone here was running (I think it was called Songs of Albion?) which required an emoted action before the combat roll went through. The slower pace was offset by generally higher damage each round. Or that's how it was pitched/explained to me, as I never went through it myself, but it sounded alright. .

Haven had, and to an extent still has, a system like this. It totally falls apart with more than three people in a fight-- and if you have more than 5 to 7, you won't get a turn for a solid ten minutes.

One time, there was a fight with something like twelve to fifteen people in it. The fight took three hours, no exaggerations.

yea.. Havens combat system was shit. I wonder if it would be possible to simply slow the combat down to 1/3rd the speed to provide more time for actions and make things less hectic

A really bad sword with a short blade lies here. look sword This sword hardly even a sword. It's kind of really just a piece of metal bent like a sword. Its blade is rather short. Kind of pathetic, really.

I think the reason combat's faster is because agility improves attack speed, where everyone had the same base speed (what 10 agi is now I guess) back in the day, and the only difference was what kind of weapon you're using and your grip.

Everything gets smaller now the further that I goTowards the mouth and the reunion of the known and the unknownConsider yourself lucky if you think of it as homeYou can move mountains with your misery if you don't

I'm all for a slower-paced auto-combat to allow for more emotes and stuff.

However, I'm also all for, a system in which it requires an emote to engage in combat, period. I've never been big on combat chars, or combat in general. But I do feel that it could be improved, by tweaking the system, and/or adding in a system that would force people to RP out their combat in a basic way.

I'm not saying remove auto-combat, or introduce pure RP combat. But a nice balance of the two would be something that I'd enjoy.

I have two forces by my sideOne's the truth and one's a lieWhich one's which I cannot tellThis enigma is my hell

The way to design a turn-based combat system for a MUD isn't to do this:

- Player one takes a turn, while the other players wait.- Player two takes a turn next, while the other players wait.- Etc.

You'd want to do this, instead:

- Any players engaging directly with each other are synced to one another, and take their turn simultaneously. There is a time limit on decision-making, and the output happens when that time limit runs out (giving players the opportunity to emote, but not allowing combat to drag on indefinitely).

ETA: If you were to slow down combat significantly in our current system, you'd have to increase damage output, otherwise fights will take forever. It seems like a simple fix, but it'd require a whole lot of changes to the current system beyond slowing down attack speed; you'd have to factor in frequency of flee attempts, damage balance, ranged combat, bleeding reduction and thresholds, status effect thresholds, and so on and so on.

It'd be a major undertaking, because it would cause a myriad of unforeseen problems.

ETA2: The other problem with going this slow down+increase damage route has to do with probability. The more damage rolls and attack rolls that happen in a given combat encounter, the more that the probability will skew towards aligning itself with the actual skill levels of the participants. The fewer the attacks necessary to resolve a combat encounter, the more random combat encounter results will become.

- Any players engaging directly with each other are synced to one another, and take their turn simultaneously. There is a time limit on decision-making, and the output happens when that time limit runs out (giving players the opportunity to emote, but not allowing combat to drag on indefinitely).

This is the best idea.

Songweaver wrote:ETA2: The other problem with going this slow down+increase damage route has to do with probability. The more damage rolls and attack rolls that happen in a given combat encounter, the more that the probability will skew towards aligning itself with the actual skill levels of the participants. The fewer the attacks necessary to resolve a combat encounter, the more random combat encounter results will become.

'Easy' fix, design-wise. Each 'combat round' is made up of multiples, increasing damage by way of increasing 'attacks per round.'Spears get two, swords get three, daggers get four, or whatever, but actually balanced to players' weapons and agility.

- There is no benefit to attacking first. This means no bonus to being the person who types "hit target", including being the first person to automatically take a swing. You'd need to have some sort of initiative (agi+weapon speed or the like) roll to determine who actually gets that first coded attack.

Interesting you should mention this. We are discussing exactly these things in staff forums.

The greatest enemy to propaganda or even counter-propaganda is open, unadulterated channels of free opinion.

After continued thought and more recent experiences, I've come to the personal philosophy below for PVP. I think that it's fair, and shows good-will, with reasonable limitations. With somewhat unregulated PVP (how it should be, IMO) staff-side, personal player conclusions will set the tone for co-operative PVP.

I will always attempt to engage the player(s) of my character's enemy in a scene roleplayed out to the best of my ability, even if it means giving up some of my own coded advantage. Should the other player squander this opportunity, however, by choosing to run away (or immediately engage) without realistic roleplay, I will add them to a list of characters that I have started. In the future, they will not be afforded the opportunity for a meaningful scene should our paths cross, and I will instead use all of the options of the code to my character's advantage.

I will also keep a list of players engaged by my characters that play particularly well, so that I can recommend them to staff.

When possible, I will avoid killing another player's character outright, and do my best to ensure that should they die, they get a well-played scene that will afford them some opportunity to finish their character's story in a more meaningful way.

Songweaver wrote:When possible, I will avoid killing another player's character outright, and do my best to ensure that should they die, they get a well-played scene that will afford them some opportunity to finish their character's story in a more meaningful way.

I agree with everything else, but right here, when it comes to warg characters only, I can't see my character allowing them to live under any circumstance. But I will certainly strive to make any death scene fun.

“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”

I remember once, or actually twice, I got someone uncon, and RPed thinking they were dead. Clearly emoted that when they woke up from uncon, "emote is walking away, clearly believing the felled creature is already dead."

Songweaver wrote:When possible, I will avoid killing another player's character outright, and do my best to ensure that should they die, they get a well-played scene that will afford them some opportunity to finish their character's story in a more meaningful way.

I agree with everything else, but right here, when it comes to warg characters only, I can't see my character allowing them to live under any circumstance. But I will certainly strive to make any death scene fun.

Other considersations could include:

One of my pack members is wounded and I need to care for them.Have any wounds to the legs? Wouldn't be able to chase down a fleeing character because you're walking all funny or it's too painful.Had any bleeding wounds? You're too weak from blood loss to chase after a fleeing character.

None of these are actions where you're letting the other character go scot free, just to waltz off. They're things that are potentially relevant. For instance, I've never had a sword wound to the leg, I'm not sure how I'd feel about chasing someone down with one. They're legitimate options that allow you the chance to roleplay while also giving that player a reasonable and non immersion breaking chance to get away.

-I had a rather frustrating experience today where I encountered some PC wargs, an RPP race available via special application only, and the scene immediately went to combat code after they saw the echoes of me in the midst of camping out while hidden.

Bitching aside, this event seemed staff supported, as I received echoes after it. As a policy question, is this acceptable behavior from players with at least 3 RPP? I understand that no official policy has been put forward to govern PvP, but this is what the description of 3 RPP says:

Whether through conflict or co-operation, you have proven that you are able to interact well with other characters (and OOCly with their players) to create interesting roleplay.

That sounds fairly anti hack and slashy.

From the 1 RPP requirement it says:

You use commands, such as emote, and think effectively and do not play the game purely as though it were a hack-and-slash MMORPG.

While there may not be an explicit, broad scope policy demanding intricate RP for combat, it seems like the RPP requirements themselves put it forward fairly clearly.

Besides this event, I've had an incredibly positive experience with PvP, though it's been almost exclusively against the human side. The pbase on the whole in that sphere has been incredibly good about considering room distances, pmotes, and the value of a scene besides earning skill ups on someone else's character.

In my experience, neither sphere is particularly better about it than the other. Individuals, and quite very few of them, strive to make PVP meaningful. Part of the problem is that once people get burned enough by people running away instead of staying to roleplay with someone emoting at them, they get the mentality that it's just not worth it. A few really twinky individuals bring down the bar for the whole game because of this.

I feel similarly, but I've decided to just keep a list. If someone twinks away from me while I'm roleplaying, or engages me without roleplay while I'm trying to roleplay with them, they go on the list. They've used up their one twink survival card -- with me, at least.

I'm guilty of this. But at this point, it's just been my nature to do so. I've been ambush attacked from a place that couldn't feasibly be RPably ambushed from. I've been twink-ambushed when I was in a 'safe' area, by someone who 'just wanted to suicide'. So. I think everyone on some level is guilty.

-I had a rather frustrating experience today where I encountered some PC wargs, an RPP race available via special application only, and the scene immediately went to combat code after they saw the echoes of me in the midst of camping out while hidden..

Having not been there, all I can say is that they likely thought you were going to just sneak off since you were performing a craft while hidden (even if it was the camp out, and maybe they thought you were camping to try and evade them all together?). I'm not particularly certain where the line falls on people performing crafts while hidden, I didn't bother following that discussion the time it came up last, though I personally think it's a cop-out.

On the other hand, I would expect Warg pcs to have a higher behavioral standard than to just attack someone outright even if it -does- look like they are trying to 'combat log' as it were. There is so much that the Wargs as a race need to prove right now such as interaction capability beyond 'hit x' 'sniff' 'howl'. Not just within the Wargs own packs and the Orc sphere, but in being a real predatory presence that the human sphere can enjoy (maybe not but best term I could think of) engaging with.

Of course that all goes out the window if the Wargs start taking arrow fire from three rooms away from a band of humans who think they're going to be easy marks. Those types of 'snipers' should be prepared for very little besides the enemy attempting to end the threat.

On the other hand, I would expect Warg pcs to have a higher behavioral standard than to just attack someone outright even if it -does- look like they are trying to 'combat log' as it were. There is so much that the Wargs as a race need to prove right now such as interaction capability beyond 'hit x' 'sniff' 'howl'. Not just within the Wargs own packs and the Orc sphere, but in being a real predatory presence that the human sphere can enjoy (maybe not but best term I could think of) engaging with.

1)As part of the event in question, I agree.

Having not been there, all I can say is that they likely thought you were going to just sneak off since you were performing a craft while hidden (even if it was the camp out, and maybe they thought you were camping to try and evade them all together?). I'm not particularly certain where the line falls on people performing crafts while hidden, I didn't bother following that discussion the time it came up last, though I personally think it's a cop-out.

2) I suspect that was the reasoning for launching right into combat, though it wasn't really by exact definition "without emoting". Emoting went on, in the briefest of moments where a scene could have sparked before engagement occurred, but then didn't. I still made an attempt, but when an ally piles on the murderboat/train/car while injured, you kind of have to act first and worry about the hurt feelings later.

Of course that all goes out the window if the Wargs start taking arrow fire from three rooms away from a band of humans who think they're going to be easy marks. Those types of 'snipers' should be prepared for very little besides the enemy attempting to end the threat.

3)Let it be said I am a kind and merciful God. The other night me and one of the PCs involved in this little debacle ran across a player with a "new player" tag. As you can guess, we were reluctant to actually engage in PVP with that poor sod, so we didn't. At all. We roleplayed.

I hope you die right now, will you drink my chemical?

Brian wrote:See, the thing that I admire about WorkerDrone is that he's an optimist!

Having not been there, all I can say is that they likely thought you were going to just sneak off since you were performing a craft while hidden (even if it was the camp out, and maybe they thought you were camping to try and evade them all together?). I'm not particularly certain where the line falls on people performing crafts while hidden, I didn't bother following that discussion the time it came up last, though I personally think it's a cop-out.

Camping out isn't a craft, it's a coded command. Ontop of that, it's already coded in that you can't quit the game--or camp from the game--after having recently participated in combat.

It seems as though this is a good example of two sides coming in with the best of intentions, and the best of their ability, and stuff STILL going sour. This isn't really something that gets discussed a lot(this -exact- scenario), and it's one of those reasons that 'ALWAYS PUNISH' doesn't work in game theory scenarios. Eventually, you have to start forgiving people that have wronged you. You can't get a list, say, 'X and Y and Z were twinks grrrr.' That said, you can't go the route of 'ALWAYS FORGIVE,' either. You've got to roll with the punches and PK assholes...and you've also got to give opponents a second chance, sometimes, or it turns into an endless cycle of 'man they wronged me.'

Case-in-point, Zargen, Derren, toofast, and another guy once tried to PK my PC on Atonement. I played it so incredibly poorly(I have regrets to this day), and half of them died while my PC survived. It was an ugly scenario that went explosive very quickly, and I was at fault.

But whether it was on that PC, or this one, or who knows how far down the road, the games we're playing together aren't gonna get any better if they just go, "Yeah, Kory's the worst. Can't trust him." You gotta walk that fine line between forgive and forget and ending people that seem like they aren't gonna give you a chance.

Camping out isn't a craft, it's a coded command. Ontop of that, it's already coded in that you can't quit the game--or camp from the game--after having recently participated in combat.

Yes, but you can still do it while hidden, which is the meat of my comment. The aggressors don't know if he was trying to camp out because he saw them coming, or if he was just randomly camping and they just came across him. I will agree that if they saw the 'camping scripted emotes' they likely should have just let him finish since the defender may have not had any time left to play on an ooc level, hence the camp.

Camping out isn't a craft, it's a coded command. Ontop of that, it's already coded in that you can't quit the game--or camp from the game--after having recently participated in combat.

Yes, but you can still do it while hidden, which is the meat of my comment. The aggressors don't know if he was trying to camp out because he saw them coming, or if he was just randomly camping and they just came across him. I will agree that if they saw the 'camping scripted emotes' they likely should have just let him finish since the defender may have not had any time left to play on an ooc level, hence the camp.

The rest of your post I have no trouble agreeing with in principal.

Shoot, man, I've never camped out(in a dangerous area) without being hidden. I wouldn't recommend anyone do that, either. Being hidden is essential to camping, because otherwise you log back in with 56 wargs right in your face and you die. Not that this is super relevant, as that's 'PvE' buuuuuuut I wouldn't judge camping while hidden too harshly. If you can't do it while hidden, the command's less than useless(in a dangerous area).